Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/22259
Record ID: 45ae856f-2e7e-4c60-be2c-060d288bf36a
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPereira, Stephanieen
dc.contributor.authorShrestha, Satyaen
dc.contributor.authorDheensa, Sandhien
dc.contributor.authorMcLindon, Elizabethen
dc.contributor.authorSpencer, Chelsea M.en
dc.contributor.authorGregory, Alisonen
dc.contributor.authorEmsley, Elizabethen
dc.coverage.spatialInternational (including Australia)en
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-06T03:54:01Z-
dc.date.available2023-03-06T03:54:01Z-
dc.date.issued2022en
dc.identifier.issn1524-8380en
dc.identifier.urihttps://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/22259-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Globally, healthcare professionals (HCPs) are increasingly asked to identify and respond to domestic violence and abuse (DVA) among patients. However, their own experiences of DVA have been largely ignored.<br/ ><br/ >Aim: To determine the prevalence of current and lifetime DVA victimisation among HCPs globally, and identify risk markers, consequences and support-seeking for DVA.<br/ ><br/ >Method: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL ASSIA and ProQuest were searched. Studies about HCPs’ personal experience of any type of DVA from any health service/country were included. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were adopted.<br/ ><br/ >Results: Fifty-one reports were included. Pooled lifetime prevalence was 31.3% (95% CI [24.7%, 38.7%] p < .001)) and past-year prevalence was 10.4% (95% CI [5.8%, 17.9%] p <.001). Pooled lifetime prevalence significantly differed (Qb=6.96, p < .01) between men (14.8%) and women (41.8%), and between HCPs in low-middle income (64.0%) and high-income countries (20.7%) (Qb = 31.41, p <.001). Risk markers were similar to those in the general population, but aspects of the HCP role posed additional and unique risks/vulnerabilities. Direct and indirect consequences of DVA meant HCP-survivors were less able to work to their best ability. While HCP-survivors were more likely than other HCPs to identify and respond to DVA among patients, doing so could be distressing. HCP-survivors faced unique barriers to seeking support. Being unable to access support – which is crucial for leaving or ending relationships with abusive people – leaves HCP-survivors entrapped.<br/ ><br/ >Conclusion: Specialised DVA interventions for HCPs are urgently needed, with adaptations for different groups and country settings. Future research should focus on developing interventions with HCP-survivors.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherSage journalsen
dc.relation.ispartofTrauma, Violence, & Abuseen
dc.subjectHealth practitionersen
dc.subject.otherUnderstanding victimisation and perpetration, and their impactsen
dc.titleHealthcare professionals’ own experiences of domestic violence and abuse: A meta-analysis of prevalence and systematic review of risk markers and consequencesen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211061771en
dc.identifier.catalogid17651en
dc.subject.keywordnew_recorden
dc.subject.keywordOpen accessen
dc.subject.keywordInvalid URLen
dc.subject.readinglistInternational (including Australia)en
dc.subject.readinglistPopulations: Otheren
dc.subject.readinglistUnderstanding victimisation and perpetration, and their impactsen
dc.description.notes<p>Open access</p>en
dc.date.entered2023-01-31en
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing